USA v. HALL, et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
JASMINE GRIMES, 	:
:
Movant, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Criminal No. 4:24-cr-00034-CDL-CHW-2
: 	Civil No.: 4:26-cv-00735-CDL-CHW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	:
: 	Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Respondent. 	: 	Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
____________________________________:
Before the Court is a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a Sentence pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Movant Jasmine Grimes, pro se. (Doc. 356). Movant failed to use the
standard form petition for § 2255 motions. Therefore, the Court is unable to conduct an initial
review of her motion in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts at this time. It is ORDERED that Movant
RECAST her § 2255 motion to vacate within 30 days of the date of this order, in which she
must clearly enumerate all her grounds for habeas relief.1 If Movant fails to recast the motion, the
pending motion (Doc. 356) will be construed as a § 2255 motion and Movant will be presumed to
have deliberately waived her right to complain of any constitutional errors or deprivations other
than those set forth in the original motion. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide Movant
with a copy of the required § 2255 form petition.
At this stage, Movant is notified that the appropriate grounds for collateral review pursuant
to § 2255 are extremely limited. See Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004).
1 The Court acknowledges that Movant’s motion (Doc. 356) as submitted is more thorough than
most pro se filings where movants failed to utilize the standard form. However, it is the Court’s
practice to require a 2255 movant to recast using the standard form.
Case 4:24-cr-00034-CDL-CHW Document 358 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 2

2
A prisoner is generally entitled to relief under § 2255 if the sentence was imposed in violation of
the Constitution or laws of the United States, the court was without jurisdiction to impose such
sentence, the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or the sentence is
otherwise subject to collateral attack. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Importantly, collateral review is
not a substitute for direct appeal. See Lynn, 365 F.3d at 1232.
It is further ORDERED that the United States Attorney RESPOND to the claims raised
in Movant’s recast motion, if one is filed, or the original filing, if an amended motion or recast
petition is not filed, by filing an answer or other responsive pleading pursuant to Rule 5 of the
Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts within 60 days
of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED AND DIRECTED, this 1st day of May, 2026.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cr-00034-CDL-CHW Document 358 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 2